- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:46:38 -0400
- To: "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
the two features that i and the community i represent use most heavily of the owl overview is the quick start reference card (the subsections of section 2 [1]) and then the hyperlinks within that section. those are the functionality portion that i am most interested in working on preserving for owl 1.1 and have offered to work on (although i would not be the one to provide css expertise). [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s2 . deborah Elisa F. Kendall wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > I exchanged email with Li Ding, who originally created the semantic > web card you've referenced, below. He provided the original MS Word > version we can use as a starting point - will email Ivan off list on > migrating that to some other form so that we can "play with it". > > Thanks, > > Elisa > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> >> Conversation with Ivan: >> >> Alan: >> There's some interest in having something like a quick reference >> card. Formatting/typesetting of this card would be important, in >> order to have it fit on the page, etc. However Peter pointed out >> that this may not be to the W3C's liking for reasons of >> accessibility, viewing on any device, etc, so I was tasked with an >> action to ask you about what guidelines are with respect to this. >> >> There's a semantic web one that someone produced that is >> inspiration. http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/resource/html/id/94/ >> Basically we're still trying to avoid a situation where we create >> redundant documents. This would be a creative way of handling an >> important function of the overview and there was general agreement >> in the UFDTF that this sort of thing is useful. >> >> Ivan: >> >> AFAIK, such cards have been produced before both for OWL and SPARQL >> (but I may be wrong). But never as an 'official' W3C deliverable. >> >> Peter is right that there would be quite a problem with W3C >> producing a W3C recommendation or any other document in PDF (only). >> If somebody could come up with a clever way of achieving the same >> effect with CSS (and then have it in forms of PDF, too), well, that >> could work. Otherwise we keep it non-official. >> >> -Alan >> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 12:47:01 UTC